You are here

Announcements

All Kickstarter Backers: Please go to your Kickstarter account and update your emails.
We're trying to give you as much time as possible for the staged rollout of pre-Alpha.
Make sure you can log in, and make sure your email address is up to date.
Please make sure *@missingworldsmedia.com is set to Allowed or Not Junk in your email settings.

What do you think of Early Access?

Lothic wrote:
Brainbot wrote:
To me it boils down to who the time limited achievement affects more.
Those who don't give two craps about most achievements are not going to be all that affected by not having an time limited exclusive badge. Those who treat achievement completion as an important part of the game will be greatly affect if they don't have (and can never get) a time limited exclusive badge.
Seems pretty simple, limited time achievements negatively affect more than they positively impact so don't have them.
And if we were talking about say half the badges in the game being permanently exclusive I might seriously rethink my stand on being against them because they represented a large percentage of the total.
But in this case we're only talking about 9 badges out of several thousand. Would players who never even played CoH even miss 9 potential badges out of thousands?
You see the anniversary badges as the only exclusive ones. I see the vet reward ones as exclusive too. Sure, everyone may get a chance to get them, but year 5 player versus day 1 player, means the day one player will never nab that first place badge collector title from year 5, without the chance at exclusive badges.

Now even I'll grant you that multiple years difference in vet status may not seem like a merely "temporary" time period but ultimately the difference is clear. ANYONE would be able to eventually earn vet status up to any level they want - something that's been locked away as "one-time only" is permanently locked.

Do your research. See if there were exclusive items you can never get and decide if that will have an effect on how much whining you do in the game.

So, back to such items being okay to have, because people can do research!

What if people "did their research" on CoT and found it to be a game that kept anything that was "permanently exclusive" to a bare minimum or eliminated those things completely? That's exactly the type of game I'd want to play. ;)

Project_Hero wrote:
How is a tie for first the same as a tie for last? P1 "I'm one of maybe a dozen or so who have all the badges!" P2 "I have 1 badge." P1 "WE'RE EXACTLY THE SAAAAME!!!"
Like... What? Realistically how many people are going to 100% the badges vs. how many people play the game? People with 100% of the badges will be like 1% of the player base. How is that not still a point of pride? That's like saying "we'll yeah I got the gold medal in x event, but so has all these people in years before! This medal is pointless!"
Easy. Base it on the idea that everyone can complete the list, so everyone can be first and if everyone is first, then everyone is last.
Seriously now. That should have been simple deduction by anyone who's ever watched The Incredibles. "If everyone is super, then no one is." :p

"If everyone has to pay a million dollars to be super then everyone is!" Sure anyone could make the kind of money to get said items, but not everyone. Same with badges. Yeah everyone can -potentially- get all the badges but how many will? Probably like 1-5% of the player base.

And to answer your other post. "I was fourteen when this game I really want to play launched but my parents wouldn't get it for me at launch and wouldn't pay for a subscription even if I did get it so I had to wait two years so I could work and get the game myself and a subscription. Now I, through no real fault of my own, missed many exclusives that were available at launch and were only available at launch and now I can never get them!" Yep. Totally should have done research about that. That would have helped them out sooooo much.

Assuming all Badge Hunters compete in the same badge hunting activity, that is, assuming they don;t subdivide themselves by weight class in any way, the people who began playing 3 years after the game rolled out are not only bereft of the event-based badges for the one-time events they missed but are also missing the veteran badges for having been a loyal customer for those first 3 years. Assuming our "newbie" badge hunter grinds his or her tail off to get all of the other badges, that person is still unable to make time go any faster for themself than for the others, so they;re permanently 3 years worth of veteran badges behind, and always will be. So it's still unfair, even if not all the badge hunters would complain about it. The ones NOT complaining are likely the ones that have the badges in question, so consider the source.

Once again, we see that badge hunters are their own worst enemies. They each want to be the person with the most badges, or the only person with all of them, and as such they're individually in favor of rules that cause that to be possible (for themselves) and are against rules that would prevent them (they, individually) from doing such. It's like saying "rule X is good if it only hurts the other badge hunters but bad if it hurts me".

As such, if you're designing a brand new game, it would be best to just have collectable badges for stuff any newbie can do and make some other form of reward/memento for one-time-only events and time milestones. What that would be, I have no idea.

Wasn't there times in CoX that had a wait period before the next wave of vet stuff was released? Like if someone was playing for a year and another 6 months but then vet stuff came out but only for the 3 and 6 month mark then both would be the same.

And I guess there's always the hope that the top vet badge hunters will get bored and leave the game for a time allowing those trailing behind to catch up. In short everyone has the ability to get all the vet badges but only those who were there, able, and did play on day one would be able to get the super exclusive day one badge! And the others have no way to get it. Ever. At all.

Those who started late will always be lagging behind, because there were vet badges.

That means, those who started late will always be last, because those who started first will always have more badges.

So, they lost because of vet time is really not that different from losing an exclusive badge based on being in game on the anniversary of the game.

As for the 14 yo, blame the parents and not the game.

Also, I made a comment how to help the newbies and ALL players stay equal within the badge hunting community. :p It was others who said, "Well, I think it should still be set up where you have to compromise on playing alts and multiple builds!"

Which btw, I knew many a player who didn't care for multiple builds (I was one of them :p) and didn't care for alts or kept the number small (not me...I maxed out Virtue! :p)

Wasn't there times in CoX that had a wait period before the next wave of vet stuff was released? Like if someone was playing for a year and another 6 months but then vet stuff came out but only for the 3 and 6 month mark then both would be the same.
And I guess there's always the hope that the top vet badge hunters will get bored and leave the game for a time allowing those trailing behind to catch up. In short everyone has the ability to get all the vet badges but only those who were there, able, and did play on day one would be able to get the super exclusive day one badge! And the others have no way to get it. Ever. At all.

Vet rewards were separated by time subscribed to the game. So day 1's who stayed subscribed to the game since day 1, where always going to have more badges than someone who had been in the game less time.

Day 1 players (who never left) were always going to be the first to get the vet badge. Which means, those who didn't were always going to lag behind. I started at CoH's 8 month point (Game released at end of April and I joined in December/January...during the first winter event), which means, a player like me was never going to have a chance at first place on the badge hunting list, because, by the time I got a new vet badge, the day 1 person was just about to get a new one :p

So, then, if the idea is to keep it so there's a 1st place badge hunter, nothing wrong with exclusive badges, as there will always be a first place badger. If the idea is to keep it so everyone can have the same number of badges as everyone else, then one has to keep the badges to something a person can do on one character without compromising concept and without having to rely on an alt.

Or I guess, one could just go with the idea of wanting rankings and people who get to be in first, but they just don't want exclusive, because they feel that somehow puts them in less of a losing position on the rankings. :p

I never thought of badge hunting as a competition, only as a completionist objective. I mean, sure there might be some that do think of it as a competition but then counting vet badges is kinda dumb. Why not make vet and/or exclusive badges like that forum only. Then they won't count to how many in-game badges you have. And would mainly only serve to say to folks "I've been here x amount of time."

Once again, we see that badge hunters are their own worst enemies. They each want to be the person with the most badges, or the only person with all of them, and as such they're individually in favor of rules that cause that to be possible (for themselves) and are against rules that would prevent them (they, individually) from doing such. It's like saying "rule X is good if it only hurts the other badge hunters but bad if it hurts me".

I want to play game where even if I have more badges than anyone else today it would be possible for someone else to eventually have EVERY badge I currently have today plus even MORE tomorrow REGARDLESS of when I STARTED playing or when the OTHER person STARTED playing. Only the existance of permanently exclusive badges would prevent that scenario from being possible.

Radiac wrote:

As such, if you're designing a brand new game, it would be best to just have collectable badges for stuff any newbie can do and make some other form of reward/memento for one-time-only events and time milestones. What that would be, I have no idea.

I never thought of badge hunting as a competition, only as a completionist objective. I mean, sure there might be some that do think of it as a competition but then counting vet badges is kinda dumb. Why not make vet and/or exclusive badges like that forum only. Then they won't count to how many in-game badges you have. And would mainly only serve to say to folks "I've been here x amount of time."

It was totally a competition, as they had a ranking of top badge hunters. That list also excluded the anniversary badges.

Note: When I say that, I base this on the sole badge site I recall visiting.

I also remember some friends being "Gah! I need to get busy and catch up to (if not pass) so and so on the badge count!"

Why even let the anniversary badges matter in the completion stage of things, seeing as how the badge counter in the game never showed it as a badge that was missed. No badge counter for it at all.

It was basically like a selfie that said "Look! I was there!"

Guess we should all start hating on people taking selfies where we aren't able to be! :p

As such, if you're designing a brand new game, it would be best to just have collectable badges for stuff any newbie can do and make some other form of reward/memento for one-time-only events and time milestones. What that would be, I have no idea.

I suggested such a system in this very thread. It got knocked for not giving healers their own badge. :p

Radiac wrote:
1. Newbie friendly policies = attracting new players = more people taking up the game = more money in purchases of the game, if nothing else.
2. Veteran rewards = reward players that we already have for play that they've already done = promote elitism
Note how line 1. leads, possibly, to increased revenue for the game, and line 2 does not.
If veteran rewards are rewards for time subscribed, as they were in the old game, then I see them differently. They are a reward to a player for being a long-term revenue stream -- income that the game has definitely received, rather than potential future income. That is income that seems well worth rewarding, in my book. And they can serve as an incentive to keep subscribing, in which case they also potentially increase future income as well. They are also not exclusive, in that anyone can earn them if they remain subscribed long enough.
Note that time subscribed does not necessarily equal time played, so the premise that anyone earning a vet reward will already have more stuff accumulated in the game won't necessarily be true for every player.

City of Heroes did have a catch up factor with money spent in their cashshop evey $15 got you credit with a month untill you hit the max

Cinnder wrote:
Radiac wrote:
1. Newbie friendly policies = attracting new players = more people taking up the game = more money in purchases of the game, if nothing else.
2. Veteran rewards = reward players that we already have for play that they've already done = promote elitism
Note how line 1. leads, possibly, to increased revenue for the game, and line 2 does not.
If veteran rewards are rewards for time subscribed, as they were in the old game, then I see them differently. They are a reward to a player for being a long-term revenue stream -- income that the game has definitely received, rather than potential future income. That is income that seems well worth rewarding, in my book. And they can serve as an incentive to keep subscribing, in which case they also potentially increase future income as well. They are also not exclusive, in that anyone can earn them if they remain subscribed long enough.
Note that time subscribed does not necessarily equal time played, so the premise that anyone earning a vet reward will already have more stuff accumulated in the game won't necessarily be true for every player.
City of Heroes did have a catch up factor with money spent in their cashshop evey $15 got you credit with a month untill you hit the max

As someone who spent money on CoH's cash shop, I can say, it never gave you credit to hit the latest vet reward. :p I was there when the game closed. :/ I bought plenty in the cash shop. Never got the highest vet reward.

No.
You continually try to frame the issue in your terms and I am not playing that game.
The comment I made was how this affects the players only. While you may 'like' the badge to be exclusive it does not negatively affect your enjoyment of the game to the same degree as missing the badge is for others who are completionists.

Brand X wrote:

We can only guess! I'd say even or leaning more towards the exclusive myself. I'd like to believe most players are level headed adults who can realize they can't get everything, while at the same time believe most players like to lord what they can above everyone else (PvP community and the badging community itself seems to prove this idea).

You obviously don't really know the achievement community very well. Those who actively seek achievements as a completion of the game are co-operative and helpful to others.

Brand X wrote:

Sooo...if the idea is to cater to those of greater numbers, I feel the exclusive offers win out.

Not offering exclusive items negatively affects more people than it positively helps.

I was talking about who is affect more by limited times achievements not how many are affected.

Brand X wrote:

Not to mention, without exclusive badges to obtain, if getting all the badges is a mini game in and of itself, so is the competition (and the reason for the badge sites in their rankings of most badges obtained) of obtaining a higher number of badges than anyone else, which means there needs to be a way for someone to have more badges than another and the only way that can happen is exclusive badges, unless the idea is to allow everyone to tie for first, which is effectively to tie for last.

Unless the collection of the badges wasn't a game about who could get more, but then why would the badge sites have a top 100 list of badge collectors? :p

Gotta stay on the ball to stay in first, if they offer exclusive badges. Also need to stay on the ball to get that exclusive badge in hopes that the #1 will miss out and you can over take them!

See, can totally see the reason to have exclusive badges in the collect the badges mini game!

Again you are showing your lack of understanding towards the achievement community.
First, the competitive achievement seekers are a subsection of the community. The rest just want that little checkmark that says 100% next to the game title.
Second, even in the competitive community they almost universally agree that exclusive badges are bad.
Third, the competition in the competitive community is based around multiple games not a single game. So that community is irrelevant to my comment which is about this game only

Forgive me but you have made it abundantly clear you hold those who seek badges in disdain and that you consider achievements pointless unless you get something from them. If you were capable of being honest with yourself you would be able to say I don't care about achievements and back out but you are in full 'win an internet argument' mode. I am not looking to argue with you so have fun tilting at the windmills.

This isn't about the achievement community as a whole. Obviously the achievement community as a whole, won't whine about missing an achievement.

However, you proved the point. There will be more who see the achievements as a competition more than those who will whine about an exclusive achievement they missed out on. :p

Unless you're saying there is also a subsection of the community that whines about the exclusive achievements. Which I can't think you're saying, as before your comment, we've already said that group of people was really so tiny as to be barely anyone. :p

So a subsection of the achievement community being competitive means that more people than the achievement community will be competitive? That's the conclusion you came to Brand X?

So the entire achievement community will probably see the exclusivity as a bad thing... But a small portion of those are competitive and would also see the exclusivity as a bad thing... So the competitive ones who are within this sphere... Are somehow also greater than this sphere... And that larger segment however that works are ok with exclusive rewards... What?

I said there's a subsection that's competitive means there's more incentive for exclusive badges, as it appeals to a bigger group of people. Unless for some reason, someone thinks the idea of "subsection of people" means 5 people out of thousands. :p

No. You need to read better.
I said there's a subsection that's competitive means there's more incentive for exclusive badges, as it appeals to a bigger group of people. Unless for some reason, someone thinks the idea of "subsection of people" means 5 people out of thousands. :p

And the competitive ones would be a subsection of the subsection of achievement hunters. As to be a competitive achievement hunter you need to be an achievement hunter. As it was said earlier "most would just want to tick that 100% box" or something similar.

So you have the achievement hunters who want 100% then you'd have the competitive achievement hunters who'd want to either have that faster than others, more than others, or more times than others. And so the competitive achievement hunters would be an even smaller subsection of the player base.

Edit: and if you think people wanting to get 100% are whiners how would you feel about an even smaller number who'd be whining that they can't get 101%? Or that they should be able to get 100% and others should only be able to get 99.6%?

Brand X wrote:
No. You need to read better.
I said there's a subsection that's competitive means there's more incentive for exclusive badges, as it appeals to a bigger group of people. Unless for some reason, someone thinks the idea of "subsection of people" means 5 people out of thousands. :p
And the competitive ones would be a subsection of the subsection of achievement hunters. As to be a competitive achievement hunter you need to be an achievement hunter. As it was said earlier "most would just want to tick that 100% box" or something similar.
So you have the achievement hunters who want 100% then you'd have the competitive achievement hunters who'd want to either have that faster than others, more than others, or more times than others. And so the competitive achievement hunters would be an even smaller subsection of the player base.
Edit: and if you think people wanting to get 100% are whiners how would you feel about an even smaller number who'd be whining that they can't get 101%? Or that they should be able to get 100% and others should only be able to get 99.6%?

Those wanting 101% I'd call dumb for not being able to do some math in terms of how collecting badges would work. :)

I didn't say the competitive subsection would be the majority of badgers, just that they'd be a big enough group to actually be called a subsection, rather than that one out of thousands who would quit over it. :p

"There will be more who see the achievements as a competition more than those who will whine about an exclusive achievement they missed out on"

That's what you said. So if most of the subsection of achievement hunters will agree that an exclusive achievements are bad. How will then the smaller section of this group who are competitive be larger than the subsection they are a subsection of?

Jeez, all this tread proves is that having permanently exclusive badges or items in general is an unnecessary point of contention and should thus be absolutely minimized.

No, it really only proves that the same two people can generate a lot of posts in a 24 hour period.

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

Project_Hero what Brand X said is correct, if confusingly written. There are less people who seek achievements than not, and of those there are even fewer who would avoid a game with exclusive achievements.

If this were to be a purely number of people affected issue then in all probability there would be more who 'like' exclusive achievements than those who dislike them. If for no other reason than the achievement community is smaller than the non-achievement community. But as I said before this is about how much they are affected and not how many are.

This is what I meant by Brand X trying to frame the issue in specific terms so as to 'win' the argument. It's spin. She won't discuss the topic in any other framework but her own. Brand X is avoiding the fact that those who like the exclusive achievements would only be marginally affected by their removal while those who don't like them are affected greatly by their inclusion. She wants the argument to be about 'how many will quit' instead of how it affects the enjoyment of those involved because the honest answer to to her question is 'not many' where the answer to mine is 'it greatly affects one side while only marginally the other'.

What I mean, just for clarity, is that those who do not actively seek achievements will not be overly affected by the removal of exclusive achievements because they are only relevant to them for a short period of time then forgotten. Whereas those who seek achievements spend a great deal of their time and effort in pursuit of those achievements because it is a major goal for them. As a result, a large part of their enjoyment of the game is hurt by the inclusion of exclusive achievements.
I don't think people would quit or avoid the game over exclusive achievements but that isn't really the point. It's about how much it affects the given parties.

Brand X has stated she knows little about the achievement community, has shown disdain for those who seek achievements and is unable or unwilling to accept that others can enjoy the game differently than she does. My suggestion is to let the issue drop because there is no progress to be made.

Though the conversation did get me thinking about vet rewards and specifically vet badges. And why even have Vet badges? Vet rewards certainly. Titles? Sure. But a badge for it? Why not remove that also? Make the badges in the game be something based on achievement in game. So a badge for like, "Has traveled X distance" but not one for "Has existed for x amount of time."

I am of the opinion that achievements should be something one can actively pursue. So I agree with you on that level alone. But that is just personal preference I don't have a logic based argument for my opinion on that.

I am of the opinion that achievements should be something one can actively pursue. So I agree with you on that level alone. But that is just personal preference I don't have a logic based argument for my opinion on that.

Brainbot, I think your grasp on achievements is the most well-informed. The thread you started on the subject certainly helped me inform my own opinions on the matter. You have made the entire issue clearer to me by noting the difference between achievements and rewards. I think this entire discussion could have been far clearer if people hadn't been using the term "badge" to discuss both the achievement and the reward.

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

Brand X has stated she knows little about the achievement community, has shown disdain for those who seek achievements and is unable or unwilling to accept that others can enjoy the game differently than she does. My suggestion is to let the issue drop because there is no progress to be made.

I don't recall ever saying I knew little about the achievement community. Or said I disdain those who seek achievements. I will say, I basically said I disdain the idea of getting rid of something just because it caused someone to cry and quit in CoH, while it made far more people go "Yay!"

Basically, I argued the numbers. More would be happy with the idea of an exclusive item than not. Others just argued for that one who would cry and quit OR how they would cry if they missed out but not quit. :p Since I didn't argue for the one who would cry and feel hurt over missing it, I get played as the bad one, because I argued in defense of the bigger majority who would be like "Cool. Got something others don't." :p

Now, this isn't to say that bigger majority isn't bigger than the average achievement hunter who's just "Oh! Something to go after! Let's do it!" Which is what I would consider what most of the achievement hunters to be. :p It's the group I put myself into. :p

So number wise, I'm just going with the idea that 95% of the players are one group, 4.999% are another (which I went that route in the discussion), and .001% are the other group and thusly, why not do something a vast more majority if people would enjoy, when the basic premise is "Keep this game running"

Also...yes. I had lots of time on my hands. It was basically my Saturday and I was just cleaning house until Justice League (see it people!)

The problem with the numbers thing is it's all entirely hypothetical. Unless a vote was taken asking if people were for or against exclusive rewards or if they didn't care one way or another... And even then that would only tell us the results from those that voted/knew about such a thing.

In my mind those who get joy out of others lacking a thing they have aren't exactly the kind of people I'd want to keep happy.

As for Justice League I'm being dragged to it by a friend. I'm expecting it to be awful, but maybe I'll be surprised. Though, Thor Ragnarok is a tough act to follow. That movie was really fun.

The problem with the numbers thing is it's all entirely hypothetical. Unless a vote was taken asking if people were for or against exclusive rewards or if they didn't care one way or another... And even then that would only tell us the results from those that voted/knew about such a thing.
In my mind those who get joy out of others lacking a thing they have aren't exactly the kind of people I'd want to keep happy.
As for Justice League I'm being dragged to it by a friend. I'm expecting it to be awful, but maybe I'll be surprised. Though, Thor Ragnarok is a tough act to follow. That movie was really fun.

I thought Avengers was better than JL (to give a comparison), but I did have fun at JL and thought it gave us the Superman we should've gotten at the end of Man of Steel (which I still say is the best Superman movie :p)

I don't recall ever saying I knew little about the achievement community.

You are right, I shouldn't have used the word 'stated'. I should have said 'Brand X has shown she knows little about the achievement community'.

Brand X wrote:

Or said I disdain those who seek achievements. I will say, I basically said I disdain the idea of getting rid of something just because it caused someone to cry and quit in CoH, while it made far more people go "Yay!"

This time I did say shown and here is just a sample of the times you have done so:

Brand X wrote:

Why? Because they where criers

Brand X wrote:

I knew heavy badgers who whined about the anniversary badges too, I thought the same thing then. Should've been there. They were just badges to say "Hey, I was there!" You weren't there, so you don't deserve the badge. It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.

Brand X wrote:

I got the drift a long time ago. Whiney player. :p

Brand X wrote:

I also told them they needed more intestinal fortitude. Though, I think I said it the same way I said it to those who missed any of the anniversary badges, "Suck it up!"

Brand X wrote:

It's a game. The same game, you know, people complained about their freedom of choice to go into a zone to obtain a badge, even though they HAD TO HAVE IT ALL, but that one freedom of choice aspect just made them whine.

Brand X wrote:

I didn't blame the game. I knew the only one to blame was myself. Seeing as how I'm not special, one can easily figure, if I can live with it, other people should.

In case you don't know what disdain means (mostly because the improper way you used it in the above) here is what it means, not worthy of consideration. You dismiss others objections to exclusive achievements as whining or crying. You use these words as way to say the complaints are not worthy of being considered. That's disdain.

Brand X wrote:

Others just argued for that one who would cry and quit OR how they would cry if they missed out but not quit.

Unless I missed something, you were the first one to bring up quitting over achievements and continue to bring it up as an argument. It was the first thing you brought up when replying to my post.

Brand X wrote:

Since I didn't argue for the one who would cry and feel hurt over missing it, I get played as the bad one, because I argued in defense of the bigger majority who would be like "Cool. Got something others don't."

You get played as the bad guy because you vilify those who have a different opinion than you while making yourself out to be some paragon of strength. Even right here you minimize their position by again saying they are crying. There is a difference between not liking something and whining about it.
And just because something does not bother you does not mean it should not bother others. It does not make you stronger or better than anyone else as you imply with statements like 'if I can live with it, other people should'. It just says that this issue is not one that upsets you enough to complain about.

People have asked you to show empathy but that isn't exactly the right word, I would say you need perspective.

You have all but said that you are just standing up for an opposing side of the issue but instead of exchanging ideas you are just being contrary for contrary sake.
It the difference between a discussion and an argument. Discussions exchange ideas to come to an agreement, arguments are just opposing ideas with no resolution. If you tried a bit more discussion and a bit less argument you might not get as much negative resistance to your opinion.

So, anyway, I don't think Early Access, per se, is a good idea. I'd certainly be up for 'Early Beta' for the purpose of testing the snot out of things. I wouldn't be surprised if people were willing to Pay for the privilege of being a beta-test-slave. But I don't think that offering the general public access to any stage prior to 'Almost There' would be wise.

Brand X wrote:
That's not disdain for achievement hunters, that's disdain for the whining. Learn the difference Brainbot. :p
What would be the difference between whining, complaining, and vocalizing distaste?

I have little kids so...

Whining, incomprehensible arguments issued in an annoying tone, often loud and obnoxious.

Complaining: thoughtfully presented argument voicing dissatisfaction

Voicing Distaste: gutteral vocalization used to express sudden, severe dissatisfaction. Most often occurs with food though not exclusively.

; )

—

I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic - Tech Team.

Given that there have been this many posts in so short of a time, I vote for having an anniversary badge every year in CoT.

If people are going to argue about it, all of the KS exclusivity has already been baked into the game. All people did was pay attention at a specific time and shove money at MWM via some electronic means.

We didn’t just shove money at MWM first of all . We supported a game that was close to COH and one that was loved by so many, this game exists because the community was strong and the developers had an idea that was well supported by fans, the fact that some missed the Kickstarter I understand they are upset but don’t turn your nose at those who did let’s wait for release and see how things go .

We didn’t just shove money at MWM first of all . We supported a game that was close to COH and one that was loved by so many, this game exists because the community was strong and the developers had an idea that was well supported by fans, the fact that some missed the Kickstarter I understand they are upset but don’t turn your nose at those who did let’s wait for release and see how things go .

The point was that the Kickstarter and an anniversary badge are functionally the same. You pay attention to what is going on during a specific window of time. You give/shove/donate/pay/whatever money to MWM via electronic means. You get something exclusive that cannot be obtained outside of that window.

I am not upset that I missed out. I don't care if others are upset about missing out on the KS or some exclusive badge. The exclusivity was baked into the game at day one of the Kickstarter. Any changes to the badge system to that effect is meaningless to debate. There has already been something that has been potentially missed out on. If an exclusive badge is an issue, the entire CoT project is an issue.

Mind-Freeze wrote:
We didn’t just shove money at MWM first of all . We supported a game that was close to COH and one that was loved by so many, this game exists because the community was strong and the developers had an idea that was well supported by fans, the fact that some missed the Kickstarter I understand they are upset but don’t turn your nose at those who did let’s wait for release and see how things go .
The point was that the Kickstarter and an anniversary badge are functionally the same. You pay attention to what is going on during a specific window of time. You give/shove/donate/pay/whatever money to MWM via electronic means. You get something exclusive that cannot be obtained outside of that window.
I am not upset that I missed out. I don't care if others are upset about missing out on the KS or some exclusive badge. The exclusivity was baked into the game at day one of the Kickstarter. Any changes to the badge system to that effect is meaningless to debate. There has already been something that has been potentially missed out on. If an exclusive badge is an issue, the entire CoT project is an issue.

So because they have chosen to have a very few permanently exclusive "items" they should just go ahead and sprinkle more and more permanently exclusives into the game? That kind of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

However, you seem to be completely disregarding that there are factors outside of ones control that may hinder ones ability to get these badges.

I feel like we've had this conversation before in another thread ... ;^p

In any case, like I said there I'd prefer if the exclusive/one-time badges were to be kept to a bare minimum. I really don't think content should be one and done - it's a waste of dev time and resources. That said, I'm perfectly fine with a handful of individual badges, like for instance a possible "Kickstarter" badge, and said game launch anniversary badges. I mean it only makes sense that if you didn't donate during development, or if you picked up the game 3 years in and weren't around for the 1st anniversary event, then you shouldn't get those particular badges. But, that's about as far as I would go with it, and I would want them to be account-wide as opposed to character-level.

So because they have chosen to have a very few permanently exclusive "items" they should just go ahead and sprinkle more and more permanently exclusives into the game? That kind of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.

blacke4dawn wrote:
So because they have chosen to have a very few permanently exclusive "items" they should just go ahead and sprinkle more and more permanently exclusives into the game? That kind of thinking just doesn't make sense to me.
I never said that, nor have I advocated it.

You did advocate for some more at least, a.k.a the anniversary badges. And how else should I interpret your statements that essentially boil down that because they have a very few permanently exclusive "items" that it's perfectly fine to add more of them?

And as I said, regardless of how much they pay attention to and plan for such things there are factors outside of their control that may hinder them for partaking in the activities that gives these permanently exclusive badges.

You did advocate for some more at least, a.k.a the anniversary badges. And how else should I interpret your statements that essentially boil down that because they have a very few permanently exclusive "items" that it's perfectly fine to add more of them?
And as I said, regardless of how much they pay attention to and plan for such things there are factors outside of their control that may hinder them for partaking in the activities that gives these permanently exclusive badges.

Ok, fine if you want to play the semantics game. Sure, I advocated the use of Anniversary badges (mostly to just piss you people off because I don't care). Now I advocate that everything in the game has an anniversary component to it and then it gets commemorated with a yearly badge. You are the one who extended the scope of my comment to mean that I wanted to pivot anniversary badges as a springboard into some catastrophic "sprinkling" of exclusive badges in any/every/all aspects of the game.

Just to reiterate, I don't care if people get exclusive badges or not. The focus should be on playing the game. If people get into a feedback loop where they obsess about getting every single badge, they should also obsess about knowing that not everything in the game can be identified by a badge.

Ok, fine if you want to play the semantics game. Sure, I advocated the use of Anniversary badges (mostly to just piss you people off because I don't care). Now I advocate that everything in the game has an anniversary component to it and then it gets commemorated with a yearly badge. You are the one who extended the scope of my comment to mean that I wanted to pivot anniversary badges as a springboard into some catastrophic "sprinkling" of exclusive badges in any/every/all aspects of the game.

I did not say "any/every/all aspects of the game", I said "more and more". I may have implied it but that was because of your own logic.

The basic logic you initially displayed is that just because they included something that is permanently exclusive (Kickstarter badge, and possibly some other Kickstarter stuff) it was perfectly fine to include permanently exclusive anniversary badges. However, that exact same logic could then be used make effectively anything permanently exclusive. That is the "scope" you yourself set up, I just took it to its logical conclusion.

Being contrary purely for sake of being contrary or for the primary purpose of pissing some people off is a very dangerous, and imo extremely stupid, stance to take.

Quote:

Just to reiterate, I don't care if people get exclusive badges or not.

For someone who supposedly don't care about this you sure show a lot of passion about it.

Quote:

The focus should be on playing the game. If people get into a feedback loop where they obsess about getting every single badge, they should also obsess about knowing that not everything in the game can be identified by a badge.

I.. ehm... what?? What the heck has those two got to do with each other?

Proving that you've done Everything in the game is different from getting every badge/achievement.

I also play a game called Start Wars Galaxies EMU. For those who may not know it is a very similar project. They are far from completion still but do have a playable server up and running and have for many years, which has allowed for a much more dynamic Alpha / Beta testing phase. As with any MMO in development, there are always problems at release without an open Beta, not only to find quirks in the game, but also allows for stability issues to be resolved before final release. In my opinion, early release or final release will not matter, with a closed Beta these problems will persist upon final release. And with 2 other similar projects ongoing, most players will go to the most complete/stable game.

I tend to dislike timed exclusive rewards. An broad example is a lot of items from before WoW's Cataclysm Expansion. With the way transmog (cosmetic system) now builds a library of visuals including the rewards from any past quests, you'd only have these items if A) You played before that expansion and B) Your characters from that time weren't deleted. There's still posts today about armor looks and profession recipes that are simply gone.

I liked the way CoX handled veterans rewards at the end. Where money spent on the store counted as the equivalent to time subbed in terms of unlocks. When a game has been out for 6 years, the '6 year reward' is unfathomable to a new player, but like how CoT is handling their shop with no lock boxes and a bonus item with everything purchased, ticking up towards veteran's rewards can help entice a player to spend money and feel rewarded instead of nickle and dimed.

If there ever needs to be a way to show someone was truly there from the beginning or actually subbed for 6 years, an achievement (worth 0 points) and possibly a title should suffice. I agree with Lothic, everything should feel as if it's in reach, a new player should never feel as if something is truly locked out from them just because they were 4 when the game launched.